[LSR] Post-inc load/store cost model in loop strength reduction

Project Infrastructure LLVM Dev List Archives
1

Hi,

I found LSR does not accurately model an IV increment cost on my target

with post-inc load/store instructions for particular types. The related code

is in lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopStrengthReduce.cpp:

void Cost::RateRegister()

…

unsigned LoopCost = 1;

if (TTI.shouldFavorPostInc()) {

const SCEV *LoopStep = AR->getStepRecurrence(SE);

if (isa(LoopStep)) {

// Check if a post-indexed load/store can be used.

if (TTI.isIndexedLoadLegal(TTI.MIM_PostInc, AR->getType()) ||

TTI.isIndexedStoreLegal(TTI.MIM_PostInc, AR->getType())) {

const SCEV *LoopStart = AR->getStart();

if (!isa(LoopStart) &&

SE.isLoopInvariant(LoopStart, L))

LoopCost = 0;

}

}

Here we consult TTI with TTI.isIndexLoadLegal() to see if post-inc load/store

is supported on the target, in which case the IV increment could be folded

into the load/store to save one instruction.

However this code does not make sense to me.

  1. We don’t know if the use of this IV is a load/store.

  2. Should we pass the type of the load/store instead of the type of IV

to isIndexedLoadLocal()?

  1. I don’t understand why LoopStart needs to be a loop invariant but not a

Constant for the post-inc fold to be valid. I think the constant loop start case

is also benefit from the post-inc load/store.

Thanks,

Lei